Signing day is over and spring ball is a few weeks away. Enjoy a quiet weekend.
To the inbox ...
Matt from Omaha writes: Hey Adam, I liked the article "How did B1G's top 2010 recruits pan out?" and, as a Husker fan, decided to look back at some of our recruits to see which names still stood out. In my opinion, it appears that JUCO players seem to be least likely to become a bust when they come to college. Since recruiting isn't an exact science, do you think that it might be easier to evaluate JUCO players, or is my perception of the situation skewed do to the likes of Lavonte David, SJB, and Randy Gregory rolling into Lincoln in recent years?
Adam Rittenberg: Matt, Nebraska certainly has had a very nice run of jucos in recent years. There certainly are a number of juco busts, but you're right that it's often easier to assess those players because they're more physically mature and, in some cases, would have gone right to FBS programs out of high school if not for other reasons (academics, etc). There are risks to taking junior college players, as some have red flags in their background, but Nebraska has seen the rewards of bringing in players like David and Gregory.
Mark from Cincinnati writes: No one would listen when I said, post bowl, that Shane Morris would be the man in '14 for Michigan. NOW---that the debate is out there, I hope to get your opinion. Morris is a future 1st round pick when his days at U of M are over. Devin Gardner will NEVER be an N.F.L Q.B. He will be an offensive weapon. Why would we not make this move now, when D.G can give us another target for Shane? Not like he's new to the position.
Adam Rittenberg: Mark, you're not the first person to mention the possibility of Gardner moving back to wide receiver, which certainly is a position of need for Michigan after losing Jeremy Gallon and Drew Dileo. I just don't know if I'm buying Morris as much as you are -- not yet, at least. He did a decent job in the bowl game but operated with a limited playbook filled mostly with short, high-percentage passes. I'd like to see him stretch the field more and create big plays when protection breaks down. Keep in mind that Gardner had some huge performance for Michigan last year, and he operated behind a terrible offensive line. If the line doesn't improve -- Doug Nussmeier's scheme could help out the group -- it's asking a lot from a young player like Morris to run the show on his own.
Dan from Lewes, Del., writes: Nobody's done more with less as far as having great recruits in the past than Kirk Ferentz. But as a Hawks fan, I can't help but wonder with the amount of players they've put into the NFL (an extremely high amount compared to the success of the program), why don't more highly ranked recruits want to go there? Would being Alabama or Florida State's 3rd or 4th receiver really be better in the long run? What's the deal?
Adam Rittenberg: Dan, Iowa definitely sells its NFL tradition, but it's not as if programs like Alabama, USC, LSU and Florida State are failing to send players to the next level, too. Those programs are located closer to the top recruiting hotbeds than Iowa, which has to extend its recruiting reach far beyond the state. Iowa also doesn't sell itself as an overly flashy program. That's not Kirk Ferentz's style, but sometimes it might work against Iowa in recruiting some of the elite players, who crave the spotlight. Iowa isn't a program you hear about much in the national media, which is largely by design. But if you want to work with a staff focused on development with a track record of producing NFL players, Iowa is a great place to go.
Chris from Milwaukee writes: Hey Adam, I love recruiting season, but have one pet peeve. Whenever a team loses out on a recruit you start hearing from the fan base the player had academic issues and wasn't going to qualify. Do academic requirements vary from school to school or do they all follow the NCAA Clearinghouse?
Adam Rittenberg: Chris, every school must adhere to initial NCAA eligibility requirements when admitting athletes, but academic standards most definitely vary from program to program. I don't know if the differences are as pronounced as some fans believe them to be, but there different standards, different numbers of academic exceptions, etc., not just from league to league but within each league as well.
John from Northern Michigan writes: I think Brian and you have some explaining to do with this list of top 10 games. First, I just noticed Nebraska's win over Georgia is not included. A B1G team beats a SEC team on New Year's Day and it is not in the top 10? That is actually the biggest oversight, it is easily in the top 10.Second, no way you can justify leaving the Rose Bowl victory out of the #1 position. Try to gain some perspective here, this is only the B1G's second victory in 14 years at the Rose Bowl.
Adam Rittenberg: John, some good points on why the Rose Bowl should have been No. 1, and perhaps we made a mistake there. It certainly was a historic win, not just for Michigan State but the Big Ten. But Nebraska-Georgia? C'mon. Two banged-up teams that had underachieved during the season played a rematch in a bowl game that neither fan base cared that much about. Credit Nebraska for winning and playing well, but that game doesn't belong on a Top 10 list.
Marcus Aurelius from Placer, Calif., writes: When will the NCAA get with the times and allow emailed/scanned letters of intent, like the rest of the world uses for documentation?
Adam Rittenberg: It would be nice, Marcus. Some schools like Northwestern actually are offering programs that allow electronic signatures and email/scanning, but for the most part, it's still all about the fax machine. I spent signing day at Michigan State and some of their assistants were joking about how archaic the faxes are. I know the compliance folks need clear proof of signatures and that the forms are filled out correctly, but we have programs that can do this through email. I think we'll see more and more schools go that route.